You are here

NDP Ex-MPs to rock Couillard's world?

Indeed. That is the opposite. There are ways to give metropolitan areas more powers without making them separate départements, provinces, or whatever. The idea of a Montréal not part of Québec is a reactionary angryphone vision that always involves more bilingual signage and other attempts to erase French-language identity. There has been a movement across many countries to give cities more powers.

I don't see how the island as a whole getting such powers would be more valid than the city of Montréal, Laval and Longueuil - the west island is certainly as suburban and carcentric as the worst of Laval. Homelessness and semi-itinerance have spread far beyond the city centre and I'm sure there are cases in the largest and most urbanised of the suburbs.

Pretending that all those who care about the social condition of the anglophone community in Quebec are like Galganov is the equivalent of saying that all sovereigntists are Bock Coté and Martineau. Completely unfair and insulting to the intelligence of both communities. There are anglophones who do a good job of exposing the challenges currently being faced by the english community without being Galganov-esque clowns, such as Jack Jedwab president of the Association for Canadian Studies and organizations such as Youth Employment Services. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-allophones-anglophones-mor... for an example of what they actually concern themselves with rather than the characature of them being only focused on signs on commercial buildings.

Honestly the most maddening thing about these organizations is they have 1 winning issue where they can actually mobalize the majority of Quebec society and they refuse to mention it. Last year for the 40th anniversary of Bill 101 Leger did a poll of the various aspects of the law, most were popular except 1.

Currently 60% of all Quebeckers (including 53% of Francophones) believe that all parents should have the right to send their child to the school of their choice regardless of language. Only 31% agree with the current status quo ban on Francophones and Allophones having that freedom of choice, yet 100% of Quebec's MNAs represent that position held by 31%.

Considering that this is an issue that actually threatens the future of the Anglophone education institutions (unlike the current sign laws which threaten nothing), these organizations not fighting for the majority held position is downright incompetance. 22 english schools in Montreal have closed due to lack of enrollment since 1998, yet they refuse to fight (even when they have the support of a majority of Francophones) which is why I'm quite disillusioned with these organizations. While they do great work in exposing the problems they refuse to project strength and fight for their community.

Indeed. That is the opposite. There are ways to give metropolitan areas more powers without making them separate départements, provinces, or whatever. The idea of a Montréal not part of Québec is a reactionary angryphone vision that always involves more bilingual signage and other attempts to erase French-language identity. There has been a movement across many countries to give cities more powers.

I don't see how the island as a whole getting such powers would be more valid than the city of Montréal, Laval and Longueuil - the west island is certainly as suburban and carcentric as the worst of Laval. Homelessness and semi-itinerance have spread far beyond the city centre and I'm sure there are cases in the largest and most urbanised of the suburbs.

I never said Montréal should be a province and my vision of an autonomous Montréal is not written from the angryphone play book. I never said or suggested a 'sovereign' Montréal should be a replica of downtown Toronto. I never said anything about more English signs and a more English face.

I'm talking about power and distinct status. That's all.

Homelessness may have spread to the West Island and to the Eastern part of Montréal like Ville d'Anjou but it is rare as a 3 dollar bill to see the same state of destitution on the South and North shores. Montréal has a seriuous poverty problem and a housing crisis that is over 20 years old.

And you know full well that the reality in a metropolis like Montréal is not at all the reality in Rimouski or St-Louis de Ha Ha.

I think Montréal should be run by local governments,not a provincial government whose,especially in the case of CAQ,base is rural and Quebec City regional. If that's the base,our urban communities suffer and destitution rises rather than decrease.

Your example illustrates the same right turn as Legault. More "individual rights" that undermine social rights.

Yes, of course I think anglophones have valid concerns, especially older people and especially isolated communities such as in the Townships, the Gaspé and the Lower North Shore, where it is hard for them to access healthcare and social services in their languages, though older people may legitimately have a limited grasp of French. But that also applies to other linguistic communities - I worked at Centro Dante for a while. What I don't approve is using legitimate concerns to undermine the progress we have achieved in making French the common language of communication in Québec, despite the rearguard actions of reactionary elements in allophone communities - élites who wanted to corral the working class under their control, against making common cause with francophone workers. The Consiglio, the Greek group (forget the name), the Canadian Jewish Congress for that matter, all toadies to the Liberal party and enemies of progressives within their own cultural communities.

Alan, I wasn't calling you an angryphone. I was referring to pietro, who has already referred to himself as such. Thought that was obvious when I wrote a few words in Italian.

I also agree with a "metropolitan" status for Montréal, as do many other cultural workers and organisations.

Montreal is distinct from the rest of Quebec. Most Montreals don't care what language people speak in their own homes or to each other. Last I heard, Montreal is the most trilingual city in the world. It is the economic engine of Quebec and its liaison with the rest of North America specifically because of English and the many other languages spoken here.

Like Alan, I couldn't care less about signage. Me and mine already have access to Engish schools. It's francophones that are legally prevented from attending the schools of their choice. Individual rights don't always trump collective rights but neither should collective desires trump individual rights.

Keeing francophones unilingual makes them captive workers. You can bet all the bosses and their kids speak English. Just gotta make sure the worker class doesn't learn it.

QS's version of sovereignty is multicultural but that makes no sense to a large number of sovereigntists to whom the main point is maintaining traditional Quebecois culture not just that everybody speaks French when out and about. The point of bill 101 was to assimilate immigrants. That's why it is so upsetting that immigrants still speak their original language at home. It means they aren't assimilating. French families have left Montreal because the schools are reaching 50% immigrant population and they want their children to have the same traditional experience as they did growing up. While I favor what I consider the more enriching experience of growing up exposed to multiple cultures I can still see the appeal of living in a community with more closely shared traditions. We respect the right of Hasidic Jews and other groups to have freedom of association. It isn't racist. It's a desire to preserve a way of life.

The PQ also tried to change the focus to just language and that is another reason they have dropped support and CAQ has increased support. Many people feel threatened by immigration. They don't want the face of the province to just remain French they want the province to remain traditional Quebecois. They want separation of church and state but they want the nativity scenes and Christmas trees to remain the face of Christmas in Quebec. Language is just one protective aspect of culture not the be all and end all of it.

CAQ is appealing to the garrison mentality of a people under siege, threatened first by assimilation into English Canada and now by a growing immigrant population that will eventually dominate the province after it dominates Montreal. Preservation has always been at the root of the sovereignty movement. Just because leaders want to change that and make it all about language doesn't mean the motivation of the people can be changed.

The issue of immigration will only grow as the percentage of immigrants in Montreal and Quebec rises.

I think Montréal should be run by local governments,not a provincial government whose,especially in the case of CAQ,base is rural and Quebec City regional. If that's the base,our urban communities suffer and destitution rises rather than decrease.

Out of curiosity, I just went through the entire cabinet on Wikipedia. 12 represent Montréal island ridings, 13 represent the "rest of Québec", of whom more than half are from places like Laval and Brossard, not Rimouski. Montréal isn't excluded from government; indeed, if the CAQ wins, it'll win because it's made a breakthrough on the island, and those MNAs will be favoured to be in cabinet. Truly rural ridings like Rouyn-Noranda or Îles-de-la-Madeleine are overrepresented in relation to their population, but the provincial government isn't being run from Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!. (Also, I don't visit the regions often, as a downtown-dweller without a car, but every time I do, I'm surprised by them being more linguistically diverse, and having a larger First Nations population, than my stereotype gives them credit for.)

The reason Montréal feels (and often is) ignored politically isn't due to a conspiracy of farmers and miners to lock out Québec's largest city. It's because Montréal voters don't swing very much, at least between the PQ and the PLQ. Those bases are locked in, and can thus safely be ignored.

On another note: Is it time to start a new thread entitled "Québec general election, 2018"? This thread has drifted from speculation about the potential existence of an NPDQ to a chronicle of the birth of said NPDQ to a general election thread.

Yes, so far all our wins (QS) have been in formerly PQ ridings, but rather distinctive ones. However, we did surprisingly well in Verdun. Rather distinctive as Gérald Godin was among the farthest left of the original PQ caucus, and distinguished himself by his efforts in favour of immigrant workers. And St-Jacques (now Ste-Marie-St-Jacques) was well known as an LGBT-friendly riding (Q didn't exist back then). Claude Charron and André Boulerice were both openly gay.

Pietro is right that it is at least a starting point. One interesting side note is the NDPQ is ahead of the Green Party and neck and neck with the Conservative party. Both had finished ahead of NDPQ in the recent Louis-Hebert by election.

Those seven MPs don't want Ouellet ruining their chances of re-election by talking about sovereignty.

Sovereignty is not a dead electoral issue in Quebec. 7 MPs became independents over it. Sovereignists don't even want to talk about it.

The Liberals are the best hope we have this election <shudder> but for the future the NDPQ is our best hope.

Pondering...the sovereignty thing seems to be slowly dying on its own at this stage...why are you still so fixated on rhetorically beating it with a stick? The October Crisis was 48 years ago, Levesque is dead, Parizeau is dead, Duceppe is in retirement, the PQ is dying, the BQ is now essentially dead, and there hasn't been an referendum since '96. Why are you still acting like this is an existential crisis? Why don't you take the defection of the 7 Bloc MPs as a sign that you can ease up about this? Their defection actually supports the argument that sovereignty is(for many years to come) a dead issue in Quebec.

​What's the point of being in a vindictive rage about something that is clearly fading away on its own? Obsessing about the sovereigntist menace is kind of like living in fear that that the Hapsburgs will be restored to the throne.

Pondering...the sovereignty thing seems to be slowly dying on its own at this stage...why are you still so fixated on rhetorically beating it with a stick? The October Crisis was 48 years ago, Levesque is dead, Parizeau is dead, Duceppe is in retirement, the PQ is dying, the BQ is now essentially dead, and there hasn't been an referendum since '96. Why are you still acting like this is an existential crisis? Why don't you take the defection of the 7 Bloc MPs as a sign that you can ease up about this? Their defection actually supports the argument that sovereignty is(for many years to come) a dead issue in Quebec.

​What's the point of being in a vindictive rage about something that is clearly fading away on its own? Obsessing about the sovereigntist menace is kind of like living in fear that that the Hapsburgs will be restored to the throne.

You clearly do not understand. I am not the least bit concerned that Quebec will separate. Not even a tiny bit. If Quebec were more progressive I might even support separation but that is just an intellectual exercise.

My concern is to get a leftist government in power. The only way that will happen is if we have a non-sovereignist option on the left. If Quebec Solidaire were non-sovereignist maybe they could win more support, not from me, they already get my vote, but from other Quebecers. It's like if a political party insisted on closing bridges to Montreal. The rest of their platform wouldn't matter. They would lose. If it was a party I supported I would be pissed off that they took a stupid position.

That seven MPs would leave the Bloc because their leader insists on talking about sovereignty just goes to show how poisonous the topic is in Quebec. QS is married to it therefore they can't win.

I want a leftist party that can win. The NDPQ could grow into that party. QS cannot.

The NDPQ and QS are not in competition. The NDPQ is in competition for non-sovereignist votes. QS is in competition for sovereignist votes.

I resent that the only place for a non-sovereignist vote is the Liberals or CAQ. I think we deserve a leftist option. I find it really offensive that anyone would be against my having that choice presumably because they want to force me to choose between right wing and sovereignty.

I don't support either. I deserve a choice.

P.S. If anyone is in a vindictive rage it's people who don't want anyone else to have a chance to win votes that they can't win themselves, like QS.

Pondering...the sovereignty thing seems to be slowly dying on its own at this stage...why are you still so fixated on rhetorically beating it with a stick? The October Crisis was 48 years ago, Levesque is dead, Parizeau is dead, Duceppe is in retirement, the PQ is dying, the BQ is now essentially dead, and there hasn't been an referendum since '96. Why are you still acting like this is an existential crisis? Why don't you take the defection of the 7 Bloc MPs as a sign that you can ease up about this? Their defection actually supports the argument that sovereignty is(for many years to come) a dead issue in Quebec.

​What's the point of being in a vindictive rage about something that is clearly fading away on its own? Obsessing about the sovereigntist menace is kind of like living in fear that that the Hapsburgs will be restored to the throne.

You clearly do not understand. I am not the least bit concerned that Quebec will separate. Not even a tiny bit. If Quebec were more progressive I might even support separation but that is just an intellectual exercise.

My concern is to get a leftist government in power. The only way that will happen is if we have a non-sovereignist option on the left. If Quebec Solidaire were non-sovereignist maybe they could win more support, not from me, they already get my vote, but from other Quebecers. It's like if a political party insisted on closing bridges to Montreal. The rest of their platform wouldn't matter. They would lose. If it was a party I supported I would be pissed off that they took a stupid position.

That seven MPs would leave the Bloc because their leader insists on talking about sovereignty just goes to show how poisonous the topic is in Quebec. QS is married to it therefore they can't win.

I want a leftist party that can win. The NDPQ could grow into that party. QS cannot.

The NDPQ and QS are not in competition. The NDPQ is in competition for non-sovereignist votes. QS is in competition for sovereignist votes.

I resent that the only place for a non-sovereignist vote is the Liberals or CAQ. I think we deserve a leftist option. I find it really offensive that anyone would be against my having that choice presumably because they want to force me to choose between right wing and sovereignty.

I was countering the argument you and others make that sovereignty is no longer an election issue in Quebec therefore there is no need for an NDPQ when clearly sovereignty very much is an election issue.

These seven MPs are evidence of that.

As far as I can tell it is the norm on this board to continue posting supporting facts and arguments about things posters believe in or support or are against.

NDPQ at 3%, Quebec Conservatives at 4%. I'm glad that there are some new options being built from the ground up that will challenge certain points of view that are just seen as a given and actually give us some real federalist choices, instead of just having 1.

I was countering the argument you and others make that sovereignty is no longer an election issue in Quebec therefore there is no need for an NDPQ when clearly sovereignty very much is an election issue.

These seven MPs are evidence of that.

Perhaps I misread what I read, but did this seven leave over sovereignty? I got the sense that they left over the leader's autocratic style.

I was countering the argument you and others make that sovereignty is no longer an election issue in Quebec therefore there is no need for an NDPQ when clearly sovereignty very much is an election issue.

These seven MPs are evidence of that.

Perhaps I misread what I read, but did this seven leave over sovereignty? I got the sense that they left over the leader's autocratic style.

That was part of it but the sovereignty issue was the catalyst.

In a statement about their decision to quit, the seven MPs blamed Ouellet for focusing so much on sovereignty that the broader economic and cultural interests of Quebec were getting lost in the shuffle. They said internal fractures were distracting from the party’s ultimate goal of standing up for the province.

“While we argue amongst ourselves in the public eye, we are not adequately defending the interests of Quebecers, we are not playing the role that the public elected us to perform,” they said in a French-language statement. “Quebec has nothing to gain from disputes within the Bloc Québécois.”

In a statement about their decision to quit, the seven MPs blamed Ouellet for focusing so much on sovereignty that the broader economic and cultural interests of Quebec were getting lost in the shuffle.

OK, fair enough. I agree that's pretty silly, and also proof that nothing's dead when it's still breathing and has a pulse.

I was countering the argument you and others make that sovereignty is no longer an election issue in Quebec therefore there is no need for an NDPQ when clearly sovereignty very much is an election issue.

These seven MPs are evidence of that.

Perhaps I misread what I read, but did this seven leave over sovereignty? I got the sense that they left over the leader's autocratic style.

That was part of it but the sovereignty issue was the catalyst.

In a statement about their decision to quit, the seven MPs blamed Ouellet for focusing so much on sovereignty that the broader economic and cultural interests of Quebec were getting lost in the shuffle. They said internal fractures were distracting from the party’s ultimate goal of standing up for the province.

“While we argue amongst ourselves in the public eye, we are not adequately defending the interests of Quebecers, we are not playing the role that the public elected us to perform,” they said in a French-language statement. “Quebec has nothing to gain from disputes within the Bloc Québécois.”

To clarify, the MPs were upset that Oullette was LEADING with the sovereignty issue to the exclusion of all else. They aren't formally renouncing sovereigntism...just wanted other issues put more to the forefront, as Duceppe did.

It's exceedingly unlikely that any of them would end up supporting the federal NDP or the NPD-Q.

Look, the NPD-Q is going to be a thing. Fine. What I'm saying is there's no reason to act as if there's an imminent threat of another referendum until the moment all sovereigntist MPs and MNAs are defeated. It's there in the background, it's the frame a lot of the Quebec left see things through(even if most of them have essentially decided it's not the main issue and shouldn't be brought up for many years to come) but for all practical purposes it's an extinct thing now.

My main point is that you have no reason to be living in fear of Quebec independence. It most likely won't happen, and it doesn't make any difference whether or not everybody in Quebec has recanted any support they ever gave to the idea. There is no clear and present danger here and it makes no difference if there's a tiny handful of people still dreaming of something that's not going to happen.
​
​You have the right to post whatever you want, but others have the right to point it out when you are sounding the alarm about a fire that's nothing but embers in the rain.

it's the frame a lot of the Quebec left see things through(even if most of them have essentially decided it's not the main issue and shouldn't be brought up for many years to come)

Um, that doesn't really make sense.

Is it the frame they choose to see things through, or is it relatively unimportant? It's one or the other, unless it's neither.

It's the way they've organized their activism and analyzed politics. But it's not the ONLY thing they care about. And it's clear that the sovereignty as an immediate goal or even a medium-range goal is not their priority. But the one thing you can't do is to demand that they outright renounce sovereigntism...asking that is asking these people to essentially surrender to Anglo-supremacism. Rather than causing them to let go of sovereigntism as part of their political identity, demanding they formally renounce it or making an all out effort to wipe them off of the political map is only going to make soft sovereigntists(the anti-Oulette Bloc MPs would be in that category, as would Duceppe and, in my view, most people who vote QS) dig in, to provoke them to fight back simply out of resentment at the insistence that they make some sort of gesture of official surrender.

Sovereignty is slowly dying out. The best thing to do, for those who really want it to go away, is to leave it at that-to get out of the mindset that the idea is something that HAS to be crushed, has to be eradicated. Sovereigntism is simply an idea, and as an idea it is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsicall evil.

They aren't formally renouncing sovereigntism...just wanted other issues put more to the forefront, as Duceppe did.

Where did I suggest otherwise? It's like you don't even read my posts. The only point I am making is that talking about sovereignty is electoral suicide even for a sovereignist party. People just don't want to hear it anymore. That is why the seven quit. They don't want to lose their seats in 2019. Yes, she is too autocratic, she won't shut up about sovereignty when her caucus is advising her that they want to focus on representing Quebec's interests and sovereignty is a distraction from that. That's what she is too autocratic about. She wants sovereignty front and centre. Peladeau's fist pump for sovereignty ruined the PQ chances now the Bloc has a pig-headed leader who wants to follow him to defeat.

Ken Burch wrote:

What I'm saying is there's no reason to act as if there's an imminent threat of another referendum until the moment all sovereigntist MPs and MNAs are defeated.

​Read carefully please because I have already said this. There is no danger of another referendum. There is no danger of Quebec ever separating from Canada. It's not going to happen. I'm not afraid it is going to happen. I might even support it depending on why it is happening. The sovereignty movement is in permanent decline. Demographics guarantee it.

Ken Burch wrote:

It's there in the background, it's the frame a lot of the Quebec left see things through(even if most of them have essentially decided it's not the main issue and shouldn't be brought up for many years to come) but for all practical purposes it's an extinct thing now.

​

The fact that they see everything through the lens of an unpopular topic is why they won't grow. I don't expect QS to renounce sovereignty especially after the merger with ON but they are a party stuck in the past despite their new young charismatic co-leader. For a protest party they have done really well but they will never lead Quebec. They will win seats not elections.

Ken Burch wrote:

​You have the right to post whatever you want, but others have the right to point it out when you are sounding the alarm about a fire that's nothing but embers in the rain.

​

Except I'm not the one raising the alarm. The people who don't want the NDPQ to exist are the one's raising the alarm. They don't want to see support for the NDPQ here.

The leading parties in Quebec, by a long shot, are the CAQ and the Liberals, both right wing. Both non-sovereignist.

The Léger poll for Le Devoir released Saturday puts the CAQ ahead, with 36 per cent in popular support, compared with 32 per cent for the Quebec Liberal Party, 19 per cent for the Parti Québécois and 11 per cent for Québec solidaire.

With 43 per cent of voting intentions among francophones, François Legault’s CAQ could form a “clear majority” government, according to Jean-Marc Léger, president of the polling firm.

Only nine per cent of respondents believe that PQ Leader Jean-François Lisée would make the best premier, tied with Manon Massé and Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, co-spokespersons for Québec solidaire.

Fully 29 per cent say Legault would make the best premier, while 17 per cent say Premier Philippe Couillard is the best leader.

I want to make it really really clear that I do not fear another referendum. As you have noted, sovereignty is on the decline. If the left ties itself to sovereignty then the left is also in decline.

I don't think sovereignty is an issue worth dooming Quebec to right wing parties until it is achieved. Perhaps that is exactly what QS supporters want in the hopes things get so bad people will vote QS out of desperation.

Sovereignty is slowly dying out. The best thing to do, for those who really want it to go away, is to leave it at that-to get out of the mindset that the idea is something that HAS to be crushed, has to be eradicated.

Of course there is no need to crush it or eradicate it. It's dying along with every party dedicated to it. QS felt their best way forward was merging with ON and keeping sovereignty as a long term goal. That's fine. Sovereignists deserve to have a leftist party they can vote for that supports their goal. Non-sovereignists deserve the same.

What's objectionable is the opinion that non-sovereignists should have to choose between voting right-wing or voting for a sovereignist party. That has led to successive right-wing governments.

If QS would rather see us under right wing governments, even CAQ, then see a non-sovereignist left-wing party then QS is in it for QS not for Quebecers and there is no solidarity in that.

My enthusiasm for the NDPQ has fallen greatly, specifically for their support of implementing the Bouchard Taylor commission recommendations. I'm currently leaning towards leaving the party and joining the Quebec Green Party if they adopt that as part of their platform. I was against it when the PQ tried to support discrimination through the Charter of Values and I'm again this as well. I agree with Charles Taylor when he says such laws promote the stigmatization of Muslims. If they pass this resolution, I'm not ashamed to say I was wrong about the party. I searched the other parties and the Green Party is the only one who doesn't support some form of discrimination towards religious minorities, so that makes my choice easy.

I read into Amir Khadir's parting words a slight discomfort perhaps with QS's direction towards the sovereignty movement. I think I am not alone in believing he would be a great MP for the NDP. Hello Outremont.

He already ran federally in Outremont, for the Bloc, in 2000. He's both too leftist (that is to say, actually leftist) and too sovereigntist for the current NDP to accept him. Not to mention he'd immediately become potential leadership competition.

In the QS statements on the economy, they are talking about setting up non-profit corporations. With enough will, they could be set up even if the QS is not in power. If they can think of something like that, Amir would certainly be a good manager, and now he is retired from the National Assembly, he could do that with no conflict.

Unbiased is what I said. Do you think the media is objective and is committed to the NDPQ or QS getting fair and equal coverage? Or do you think that corporate media interests are better represented in the three established parties — Liberals, CAQ and PQ?

Mulcair made the NDP's presentation to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, which conducted public hearings in 2007 on the impact of religious accommodation on Quebec's identity and values. The commission was run by sociologist Gérard Bouchard and philosopher Charles Taylor. He says the NDP agree with the recommendations of that report and will stand up against any proposal contrary to it.

We don't have a platform yet but I can tell you that there's consensus in Quebec, outlined in the Bouchard-Taylor report. For us, I think it will be close to that. I think so.

Except that Charles Taylor, who was part of that commission, has said that, with the passage of time, he no longer agrees with the conclusion of the Bouchard-Taylor report.

That's his opinion, but I think there's a consensus in Quebec that people in authority like a judge or police officers shouldn't wear religious symbols, but the for the rest ... It's a divisive subject. I don't think it's what people want to talk about. They want to talk about education and health care, not about religious symbols.

We've been told that there'd be this huge base of support for a "center-left, federalist" party in Quebec elections. The NPD-Q exists, it's been talked up endlessly in the corporate media...where's the support?

I was a member, but left over Bouchard Taylor. Very disappointed, but I guess my support is going to the Green Party.

Ken Burch wrote:

We've been told that there'd be this huge base of support for a "center-left, federalist" party in Quebec elections. The NPD-Q exists, it's been talked up endlessly in the corporate media...where's the support?

It hasn't been talked up by the corporate media endlessly. The last major mention of the party I can find is the general council they held at the beginning of May, no significant mentions in 2 months isn't endless talking up. The corporate media is talking up the CAQ if anyone.

There are these very artistic signs up all over my neighborhood in Montreal equating the Liberals and the CAQ. I didn't look at them closely, but I think a number of unions are paying for them.

I guess the Liberals won't get wiped out so badly as they were in Ontario, as there is a lot of stubborn support from non-franco communities. However it looks like outside Montreal the franco vote is swinging to the CAQ, mainly because of immigration, and a desire to punish the Liberals for Jean Charest-Mulroney.

The union campaign (if that is what it is) might even make the non-franco vote feel more comfortable voting for the CAQ, if they are being told there is no essential difference. Kind of a backfire, if you ask me.

I look at Alberta,the Prairies and now Ontario and look at whats going on in the US,I'd be pleased with a Liberal victory. Get back to me in 4 ro 8 years when the QNPD becomes (hopefully) a relevent and contending party.

Right now it's a 2 way race between the Liberals and CAQ. At least with Couillard and the Liberals,I know what I'm getting,CAQ seems to be a gathering of Randists,Racists and far right cretins. I have a TON of issues with PLQ but CAQ is far more dangerous in many aspects. I'd gladly vote Liberals if it meant stopping CAQ.

I wish the PQ were still the traditional alternative. Oh well. Things are not going to be pleasant for the next 4 years or so until the QNPD becomes a brand with a following.